GRO upholds Taylorsville City’s records classifications in Brown appeal; metadata explained as non‑exportable without creation

Director Pearson denied Mr. Brown’s appeal challenging Taylorsville City’s response to his records requests, finding the city had interpreted and processed the request appropriately, produced public material, and withheld nonpublic internal‑investigation material correctly under GRAMA.

Brown had sought complaints and investigations concerning Taylorsville personnel dating to 01/01/2020, alleged selective omissions in the city’s production and pressed for internal‑affairs notes, apology letters, and metadata or access logs for records produced. He alleged officers altered reports and asked the city to identify a new court order he believed permitted prosecutors to disregard a prior district court order.

Ryan Richards, presenting for the city, said Taylorsville had provided all public emails and documents it located and that the remaining material related to an ongoing internal review (drafts), which are not public under GRAMA. Richards said the only documents the city could locate related to complaint resolutions were apology letters and not the privileged investigatory or draft materials Brown sought. On metadata, Richards and IT staff said producing an access log in the form Brown wanted would require extracting and compiling data, effectively creating a new record rather than exporting an existing log.

Director Pearson said he reviewed the city’s submissions, agreed that some requests were not reasonably specific but that the city nonetheless had interpreted the requests liberally and produced public material where possible; he sustained the city’s classifications for attorney‑client and private employment records and denied Brown’s appeal. A written decision will be filed within seven business days.